Thatcher - Is it possible people have selective memories when remembering her legacy?

[Dr_Evil]

I was thinking about this recently as it happens. When I was a kid in the Seventies my Dad was a surface worker at a pit in the Valleys. He could afford to buy a nice three bedroom Victorian semi, support my Mum as a housewive and then through Uni as a mature student, run a car, take us all on holiday once a year and provide his three kids with everything we needed. We also went to an excellent state primary and enjoyed very good public services.

I think it would be much more difficult for anyone in a manual job to support a family to such a good standard today.

Thats down to the restructuring of the labour market, which was driven by capitalist pressure and not (beileve it or not!) Mrs Thatcher and her forward thinking radical alterations to the economy! No longer can we afford to pay good wages (like your father appears to have had when working at the pit) to manual workers as countries like india and china can provide workers who are just as good at far lower wages. Which one will the market go for?

Dr_evil

 

[Dr_Evil]

George - here's another view of the wood and the trees; taken from C4 yesterday (24th):

"Life Changes

Published: 24 Apr 2005
By: Faisal Islam


Opportunity for all. That's been New Labour's mantra - repeated at every
opportunity in this campaign. But today New Labour stands accused of denying
the least privileged in society exactly that.

A new report out tomorrow - but seen exclusively by Channel 4 news - reveals
those from underprivileged backgrounds are less likely to "better
themselves" than they were thirty years ago.

And while social mobility is improving in most developed countries, in
Britain it is getting worse, with more and more advantages going to those
from already wealthy backgrounds.

Just goes to show that a tory govt would be best for our economy and for the workforce in general. At least the tories encouraged people to try and rise above their station in life, whereas the socialists like to keep people in their little pigeon hole and dont encourage self improvement

 

[Sorry.]

Just goes to show that a tory govt would be best for our economy and for the workforce in general. At least the tories encouraged people to try and rise above their station in life, whereas the socialists like to keep people in their little pigeon hole and dont encourage self improvement

How does that square with social mobility dropping both during and after Thatcher?

 

[Roadkill]

Just goes to show that a tory govt would be best for our economy and for the workforce in general.

Two of the deepest recessions of the post-war period, one unsustainable credit boom and three million unemployed.

Of course the Tories were best for the economy.

 

[tobyjug]

Just goes to show that a tory govt would be best for our economy and for the workforce in general. At least the tories encouraged people to try and rise above their station in life, whereas the socialists like to keep people in their little pigeon hole and dont encourage self improvement

We have had a more tory government that the tories since 1997, which is why the gap between rich and poor is still widening.

 

[Roadkill]

We have had a more tory government that the tories since 1997, which is why the gap between rich and poor is still widening.

Yup.

In fairness, the targeted benefits New Labour are mad keen on have caused the incomes of the poorest sector of the population to rise faster than the average, but overall the rich/poor gap is as wide as ever.

<waits for the inevitable, 'but equality doesn't matter' post from the Tory contingent>

 

[ViolentPanda]

you going to read all the subsequent posts that showed it up for the trite, poorly-thought out rubbish that it was?

Of course he won't.

Dr Evil is secure in his worldview, and blots out anything that might induce cognitive dissonance.

Y' know, little things like facts.

 

[nino_savatte]

Violent Panda, Nino_savatte et al.

Yes of course I can take criticism, that's why I'm here to debate. The essence of debate is disagreement and discussion. Crass insults don't help anything, not least your arguments, and that is all I'm asking for an end to. I'd rather this were a discussion than an argument.


George.

What crass insults?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What crass insults?

You know, things like disagreeing with his ill-thought out argument, pointing out his lack of credibility, asking him for fact rather than opinion. That sort of crass insult.

Now don't do it again, savatte. I've got my eye on you!

 

[nino_savatte]

You know, things like disagreeing with his ill-thought out argument, pointing out his lack of credibility, asking him for fact rather than opinion. That sort of crass insult.

Now don't do it again, savatte. I've got my eye on you!

What's he going to be like when the auld witch croaks?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What's he going to be like when the auld witch croaks?

I'm sure George and Dr Evil will find a way to *ahem* console each other.

Oh dear, horrible mental image! I think I'm going to vom.

 

[gpbg48]

You know, things like disagreeing with his ill-thought out argument, pointing out his lack of credibility, asking him for fact rather than opinion. That sort of crass insult.

Now don't do it again, savatte. I've got my eye on you!

ViolentPanda, it had nothing to do with your countering my arguments, more the 'grow some testicals' 'won't be deterred by something as crass as fact' etc. that I resented!

In response to you're saying that the rise in income coincided with the rise in inflation, I'd hate to deter you with 'something as crass as fact' but I think you'll find that though in 1979 the two were level pegging, by 1990 the average wage had risen by close to 50% more than average prices. I suggest you check your facts before criticising mine. You also claim that the rise in the FTSE is irrelevant. I say that a 167% rise in the FTSE under Mrs Thatcher is undeniable progress, and it's grown almost another 100% since then. This really matters. In 1979, owning shares was only for the wealthy few, but thanks to privatisations, and fostering employee share-ownership, one in four Britons now owns shares.

This doesn't seem too bad to me.

 

[nino_savatte]

Illusions, mere illusions.

 

[audiotech]

In 1979, owning shares was only for the wealthy few, but thanks to privatisations, and fostering employee share-ownership, one in four Britons now owns shares.

This doesn't seem too bad to me.

Individuals' percentage holdings are 14.9 per cent and not 25 per cent as you assert. Most shares are owned by institutions as indicated below.

An analysis of registers of ordinary shares listed in the UK shows that
at 31 December 2003:

• At the end of 2003, 48.7 per cent of all ordinary shares listed on the
UK Stock Exchange (worth £666 billion) were owned by insurance
companies, pension funds and other institutional shareholders.

• £237 billion was owned by insurance companies representing 17.3
per cent of total holdings, falling from 19.9 per cent in 2002. This is
the lowest recorded percentage holding by insurance companies
since 1975.

• Pension fund holdings were £220 billion in 2003, representing 16.1
per cent of total holdings. This figure has increased slightly from
15.6 per cent at end-2002.

• Other financial institutions' holdings of UK shares have, in
percentage terms, risen slightly over the last 12 months to 11.1 per
cent (up from 10.5 per cent at the end of 2002).

• Banks' holdings of UK shares increased to 2.2 per cent (£30
billion), representing their highest share since the survey began in
1963.

 

[tobyjug]

This doesn't seem too bad to me.

It does to people who are living in the same shit different day whilst some people pay themselves telephone number sized salaries.
You seem totally unable to understand peoples experience from the economy.

 

[Dilzybhoy]

It does to people who are living in the same shit different day whilst some people pay themselves telephone number sized salaries.
You seem totally unable to understand peoples experience from the economy.

Yep. Bandying about figures doesn't change the thing I and others around me have seen and still see.

 

[ViolentPanda]

ViolentPanda, it had nothing to do with your countering my arguments, more the 'grow some testicals' 'won't be deterred by something as crass as fact' etc. that I resented!

In response to you're saying that the rise in income coincided with the rise in inflation, I'd hate to deter you with 'something as crass as fact' but I think you'll find that though in 1979 the two were level pegging, by 1990 the average wage had risen by close to 50% more than average prices. I suggest you check your facts before criticising mine.

And, yet, George, strangely enough, you don't mention that after 1991 the "basket of goods" from which price inflation is calculated was changed to better reflect the purchases the "average person" might make, An act which, if I recall correctly, made a downward adjustment to the putative ratio of purchasing power rise over inflation. Down to single figures I believe.

Oh, and I didn't say that the rise in income "coincided" with a rise in inflation, I said that purchasing power had not improved by the vast ratio you were implying with your figiues, a claim I stand by.

You also claim that the rise in the FTSE is irrelevant. I say that a 167% rise in the FTSE under Mrs Thatcher is undeniable progress, and it's grown almost another 100% since then. This really matters. In 1979, owning shares was only for the wealthy few, but thanks to privatisations, and fostering employee share-ownership, one in four Britons now owns shares.

This doesn't seem too bad to me.

You again claim that the rise i the footsie is relevant, but again don't support the claim with any context as to why this is so. You may just as well claim that the fact that somebody is 16 years older than they used to be after living 192 months is progress.
You then make an unconnected point about share ownership, but don't contextualise it in terms of private pensions etc.

Whether these are good things or bad things I'm not arguing. What I'm arguing is that your fundamental thesis is built on a politically partisan interpretation of facts and on your hagiographic mythologising of St Margaret of Grantham.

Oh, and testicles is spelt thus, not "testicals".

 

[Dr_Evil]

Two of the deepest recessions of the post-war period, one unsustainable credit boom and three million unemployed.

Of course the Tories were best for the economy.

I think you will find the 3 million unemployed was because thatcher had to take radical action to prevent the UK from becoming a 3rd world economy and had to modernise our economy to reflect the changing economic/labour market. Without her intervetnion, we may well have kept the 3 mill in work for another 5-10yrs, but after that the coal induustry (along with power and manufacturing) would ahve imploded upon themselves (due to their iniability to compete with others), shortly followed by the economy as a whole!

 

[audiotech]

I think you will find the 3 million unemployed was because thatcher had to take radical action to prevent the UK from becoming a 3rd world economy and had to modernise our economy to reflect the changing economic/labour market. Without her intervetnion, we may well have kept the 3 mill in work for another 5-10yrs, but after that the coal induustry (along with power and manufacturing) would ahve imploded upon themselves (due to their iniability to compete with others), shortly followed by the economy as a whole!

All speculation, which to me means nothing.

There was at least four million unemployed and the tories thought it a price worth paying. Others thought it a waste of a whole generation, the cost of which we're still paying for.

 

[Sorry.]

I think you will find the 3 million unemployed was because thatcher had to take radical action to prevent the UK from becoming a 3rd world economy and had to modernise our economy to reflect the changing economic/labour market. Without her intervetnion, we may well have kept the 3 mill in work for another 5-10yrs, but after that the coal induustry (along with power and manufacturing) would ahve imploded upon themselves (due to their iniability to compete with others), shortly followed by the economy as a whole!

Strange how the rest of Europe seemed to manage without de-industrialising, or state sponsored union-busting.

 

[gpbg48]

Strange how the rest of Europe seemed to manage without de-industrialising, or state sponsored union-busting.

Sorry, 'Sorry', but that's precisely where you're wrong. Europe isn't managing, and Germany especially. You don't need figures to know that the German economy is currently in dire straights, and in large part, this is due to the fact that Germany faces th same economic constrictions, because of the power of the unions amongst other things, that Britain faced in the 1970s. The program of economic reforms currently being undertaken by Schroder are modelled on Thatcher's reforms in the 1980s. Like in Britain they are currently hugely unpopular, but the German government realises that if such reforms are not carried out, the situation can and will only get worse.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry, 'Sorry', but that's precisely where you're wrong. Europe isn't managing, and Germany especially. You don't need figures to know that the German economy is currently in dire straights, and in large part, this is due to the fact that Germany faces th same economic constrictions, because of the power of the unions amongst other things, that Britain faced in the 1970s. The program of economic reforms currently being undertaken by Schroder are modelled on Thatcher's reforms in the 1980s. Like in Britain they are currently hugely unpopular, but the German government realises that if such reforms are not carried out, the situation can and will only get worse.

And so we arrive back at your understanding (or otherwise) of Germany's economy.

Yet again absolutely NO acknowledgement by yourself that the main (universally accepted amongst economists) reason for Germany's current problems isn't primarily their labour practices, but the facts of the legacy of re-unification.
The reasons for welfare reform are directly connected to the massive "hit" Germany has, is and will continue to take over re-unification in terms of unemployment, industrial remediation costs and other social welfare-related costs.

It isn't about Britain's economy having intrinsically improved in position to Germany, it's about Germany being hampered by re-unification costs. It isn't about Gerhard Schroeder "copying" Thatcherite welfare-reform policies, it's about trimming costs to continue to maximise provision as far as the state is able.

 

[dylanredefined]

No I didnt vote for kinnock or foot because i simply didnt believe in what they stood for .it was a long time ago .I dont want my taxes to go up .Neither am i keen on tax cuts if the tories can save so much money why dont they spend it on something else ?

 

[Isambard]

Thanks VP, I haven't got the time to come back on the bollocks the Tory boy is spouting on Germany at the mo.

 

[nino_savatte]

Sorry, 'Sorry', but that's precisely where you're wrong. Europe isn't managing, and Germany especially. You don't need figures to know that the German economy is currently in dire straights, and in large part, this is due to the fact that Germany faces th same economic constrictions, because of the power of the unions amongst other things, that Britain faced in the 1970s. The program of economic reforms currently being undertaken by Schroder are modelled on Thatcher's reforms in the 1980s. Like in Britain they are currently hugely unpopular, but the German government realises that if such reforms are not carried out, the situation can and will only get worse.

It's always convenient to blame things on others - it's called passing the buck. The unions always got it 'in the neck' from your sort but it's funny how you lot think the sun shines out of the management's collective arse. There's an old adage that I'm sure you are familiar with, "A poor workman always blames his tools". This could easily be extended to include management, which is, for the most part, hopelessly inept and constantly seeking ways of futher eggrandising itself.

Tell me, was Michael Edwardes a good manager of British Leyland? I don't think he was but Thatcher seemed to think he was the dog's bollocks. Presumably the management of the NCB also get your 'thumbs up'.

Have you ever worked a really dirty, tedious low paid job? I get the feeling you haven't as you appear to view Thatcher's reign through rose-tinted specs from the comfort of your ivory tower.

 

[Sorry.]

Sorry, 'Sorry', but that's precisely where you're wrong. Europe isn't managing, and Germany especially. You don't need figures to know that the German economy is currently in dire straights, and in large part, this is due to the fact that Germany faces th same economic constrictions, because of the power of the unions amongst other things, that Britain faced in the 1970s. The program of economic reforms currently being undertaken by Schroder are modelled on Thatcher's reforms in the 1980s. Like in Britain they are currently hugely unpopular, but the German government realises that if such reforms are not carried out, the situation can and will only get worse.

Again, you've come back to a point that has already been raised several times without you bothering to answer it (which explains why people are being hostile toward you).

Germans still enjoy living standards far superior to Britons, with less poverty, more job security, better public services, fewer social problems and high worker productivity. Unemployed Germans live better than many employed Britons.

Which is why you trying to hammer home your single point that "things are better now than in the 1970s" is rubbish. Living standards went up across Europe from 1979 to 2005. Very few of them underwent Thatcherism, most of them have higher living standards.

 

[Roadkill]

I think you will find the 3 million unemployed was because thatcher had to take radical action to prevent the UK from becoming a 3rd world economy and had to modernise our economy to reflect the changing economic/labour market. Without her intervetnion, we may well have kept the 3 mill in work for another 5-10yrs, but after that the coal induustry (along with power and manufacturing) would ahve imploded upon themselves (due to their iniability to compete with others), shortly followed by the economy as a whole!

As MC5 says, all speculation.

The decision to take out the coal industry was principally a political one. British Coal was losing money, but not at the rate the Tories claimed. The Ridley Plan was all about taking on the NUM: the health of the coal industry was a secondary consideration, if that. As Sorry says, it was state-sponsored union busting.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's always convenient to blame things on others - it's called passing the buck. The unions always got it 'in the neck' from your sort but it's funny how you lot think the sun shines out of the management's collective arse. There's an old adage that I'm sure you are familiar with, "A poor workman always blames his tools". This could easily be extended to include management, which is, for the most part, hopelessly inept and constantly seeking ways of futher eggrandising itself.

British corporate management has always been notoriously inept, governed as it was (and still partially is) by "old school tie"-type networks rather than by managers who both know what they're doing and know the industry they're attempting to manage.

Tell me, was Michael Edwardes a good manager of British Leyland? I don't think he was but Thatcher seemed to think he was the dog's bollocks. Presumably the management of the NCB also get your 'thumbs up'.

Edwardes wasn't a bad manager per se, he just had little clue about mass automobile manufacture in general and of BL in particular. Let's face it, the man presided over the Austin Allegro, motoring history's design nadir.
As for Sir Ian McYankeewithoutaclue, putting a corporate shark and avid asset stripper in charge of the NCB had only one purpose: the gutting of British coal.

 

[gpbg48]

Apologies, but you guys are just full of it!

'Sorry', I cannot believe you are saying that there is less poverty and more job stability in Germany than in Britain. There are currently more than 5 million German unemployed - that's 9% of the population. This year, the government deficit is likely to be 4% of GDP, far exceeding the 3% maximum allowed under the Stability and Growth pact. Growth this year is likely to be almost zero, domestic consumption has stalled and foreign investment has collapsed. How does this square with what you were saying exactly?

Nino_savatte, no I don't think all managers are fantastic and that the workers are the problem. Please stop generalising.

ViolentPanda and co. You blame reunification; the decision to allow East Germans to convert their ostmarks into deutschmarks at par crippled the economy and saddled the West with years of vast subsidies to the East that had to be paid for with higher taxes. Very true, and I'm not denying that. It is also the case that Germany has paid a high price for joining the euro at the wrong exchange rate: the over-valuation of the deutschmark has left German goods less competitive in European and world markets.

However it is also the case that Germany’s economic stagnation reflects its failure to reform in the 1980s and 1990s. As Britain and the US led the way with deregulation and liberalisation, Germany increasingly lost the battle to attract investment and its own companies found it harder to compete. This is still the case today.

You say the reforms are not Thatcherite, yet Wolfgang Mueller, the top organizer for the German union at IG Metall’s campaign among high-tech workers, has said recently that the pursuit of Thatcherite reforms in Germany is exactly what Schroeder is now doing with his reform package 'Agenda 2010'. Though not precisely emulating Thatcher's reforms, it is a belief held by Schroeder and others in the German government that it is due to Thatcher's reforms of the 1980s that Britain is the economic powerhouse it is today. Indeed, a book by historian Dominik Geppert, 'Maggie Thatcher’s Radical Cure -a Recipe for Germany?' has been a bestseller.

I fear you presume too much.

George.

 

[Sorry.]

Apologies, but you guys are just full of crap!

'Sorry', I cannot believe you are saying that there is less poverty and more job stability in Germany than in Britain. There are currently more than 5 million German unemployed - that's 9% of the population. This year, the government deficit is likely to be 4% of GDP, far exceeding the 3% maximum allowed under the Stability and Growth pact. Growth this year is likely to be almost zero, domestic consumption has stalled and foreign investment has collapsed.

Not only am I saying there's less poverty, I've actually already quoted the figures earlier in the thread! The UK's Human Poverty Index is 44% higher than Germany's. That's before we move into the other social indicators; health, education, literacy, life expectation, social mobility, social inequality, crime, teen pregnancy - all of which Germany is superior on.